Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Tech Boards > Tech / General Engine
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?

Tech / General Engine Is your car making a strange sound or won't start? Thinking of adding power with a new combination? Need other technical information or engine specific advice? Don't see another board for your problem? Post it here!

Welcome to ThirdGen.org!
Welcome to ThirdGen.org.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join the ThirdGen.org community today!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-23-2008, 09:26 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
schmeck11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 95
Car: 82 TA
Engine: 305 swap 350 swap 383
Transmission: 2004r
Axle/Gears: 3:73

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Crank HP vs. RWHP

trying to settle an argument. What do the big three, ford,gm chrysler, and everyone else for that matter refer to when talking HP. Does a new ford that claims 300HP is that crank or RWHP. like in a tpi that has 230 HP? wondering what most people talk about when they are on this topic? curious any imput appreciated.
__________________
82' TA --383, Holley 750 cfm, Dual 11" spal fans, 2004r, Spohn crossmember/torque arm, moser 12 bolt rear end 3:73's detroit trutrac, SFC's, wonder bar, hooker competition headers, B&M megashifter, ram air dual snorkel intake, 3" cat, 2800 PDQ stall coverter....
schmeck11 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 09:34 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
MaNiAk86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Highwood, IL
Posts: 742
Car: 1983 trans am
Engine: Vortec 350 w/ a comp cam
Transmission: B&Mth350 2800holeshot
Axle/Gears: 10bolt 3.23's

Classifieds Rating: (2)
Send a message via AIM to MaNiAk86
Re: Crank HP vs. RWHP

Factories talk in Flywheel horsepower.... GM advertises the ls1 at 320hp and they average 300 at the wheels stock...so a tpi that make 230hp will probably barely put 200 at the tire.
__________________

08 best: 13.07@107 on street tires, untuned
MaNiAk86 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 01:02 AM   #3
Moderator
 
Kevin91Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Disneyland, SoCal
Posts: 10,488
Car: 1991 Camaro Z28
Engine: 350 L98 siamesed runners
Transmission: LT1 T56
Axle/Gears: 9-Bolt 3.70

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Send a message via ICQ to Kevin91Z Send a message via AIM to Kevin91Z
Re: Crank HP vs. RWHP

Auto manufacturers ALWAYS advertise in flywheel horsepower, with the engine on the stand hooked up to an engine dyno. They NEVER advertise the rear wheel (or front wheel) chassis dyno numbers.
__________________
377 RWHP, 390 RWTQ (05-21-11)
12.803 @ 108.50 MPH (1.923 60') (04-11-01)
Work: Manley Performance Products
Founder: SoCal Thirdgenners
Founder: SoCal TPI Organization
Kevin91Z is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 01:31 AM   #4
Moderator
 
five7kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Littleton, CO USA
Posts: 39,540
Car: 82 Berlinetta(2)/57 Bel Air
Engine: LS1 (LS1)/LQ4
Transmission: 4L60E (T56)/4L80E
Axle/Gears: 10B 3.73(9" 4.11)/8.2" 4.11

Classifieds Rating: (11)
To further clarify, they are required to rate their engines as-installed in the vehicle they are selling it in - air cleaner, exhaust, accessories (alternator, water pump, fuel pump), that would be used in the car, when it is installed on the engine dyno. So, it is what has become known as "net flywheel horsepower". This is why identical engines can have different ratings in different cars (Vette vs. f-body, for instance - different air intake, different exhaust make a difference in rating).

The "old" method was "gross flywheel horsepower", where a lot of cheating went on - long tube headers, velocity stack on a carb that wasn't used on the engine, different carb to come up with peak horsepower and peak torque, electric water pump powered by the facility, etc. In fact, that is how almost all crate engines, whether factory or independent, are rated.
five7kid is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 09:51 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
phess11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 966
Car: 83 Z28
Engine: 305 (LG4)
Transmission: THM700R4
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt, 3.23 non-LS

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Crank HP vs. RWHP

Quote:
Originally Posted by five7kid View Post
The "old" method was "gross flywheel horsepower", where a lot of cheating went on - long tube headers, velocity stack on a carb that wasn't used on the engine, different carb to come up with peak horsepower and peak torque, electric water pump powered by the facility, etc. In fact, that is how almost all crate engines, whether factory or independent, are rated.

So using the old method. What is your opinion on what the LG4 would be rated. It would have a better air source, better exhaust, no water pump, power steering pump, air pump, no fan, etc.

I would be very curious.
phess11 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 10:06 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 504
Car: 1985 Camaro and 1996 Mustang GT
Engine: 350 4bbl/281
Transmission: 700R4/4R70W
Axle/Gears: 9" rear/8.8" 4.10

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Crank HP vs. RWHP

honestly, i think you would be rather lucky to see over 130 RWHP on a non-rebuilt, lightly modded 20+ year old LG4.
impaled is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 10:14 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 504
Car: 1985 Camaro and 1996 Mustang GT
Engine: 350 4bbl/281
Transmission: 700R4/4R70W
Axle/Gears: 9" rear/8.8" 4.10

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Crank HP vs. RWHP

http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/te...light=dyno+lg4 (LG4 dyno numbers for senior project)

the following is from post #2

""This is not exactly what you are looking for, but Hot Rod dyno'd their completely stock 82 LG4 and ended up with 145 HP @ 4000 RPMs and 165 ft/lbs @ 2400 RPMs. This is at the flywheel, not rear wheel horsepower. The LG4 is a pathetic engine in stock form.""
impaled is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 10:25 AM   #8
Moderator
 
five7kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Littleton, CO USA
Posts: 39,540
Car: 82 Berlinetta(2)/57 Bel Air
Engine: LS1 (LS1)/LQ4
Transmission: 4L60E (T56)/4L80E
Axle/Gears: 10B 3.73(9" 4.11)/8.2" 4.11

Classifieds Rating: (11)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phess11 View Post
So using the old method. What is your opinion on what the LG4 would be rated. It would have a better air source, better exhaust, no water pump, power steering pump, air pump, no fan, etc.
The early LG4's would be in the 165 range. The later ones, with higher compression, a little higher, 175-190.
five7kid is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 12:42 PM   #9
Supreme Member
 
Ozz1967's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Thetford, UK
Posts: 1,825
Car: 1984 Trans Am
Engine: 355
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.73

Classifieds Rating: (2)
Re: Crank HP vs. RWHP

I took my 84 T/A to a shop here that had a chassis dyno. They told me they couldn't get a true reading because I can't get to WOT in my highest drive gear (overdrive) because the car shifts. We tried it once and ouch...I thought the car was going to come apart...good thing the chains and mounting points held. Hoever, I did several 1st gear pulls and the best 1st gear pull reading I got on my L69 was 100hp and 120ft-lbs torque at 4200rpm. THis was an unrebuilt engine with 127k miles on it. Now, I don't know how to get a proper reading for my automatic on the chassis dyno but at least I have a baseline for when I get my new 350 finished.

Last edited by Ozz1967; 06-24-2008 at 12:52 PM.
Ozz1967 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 12:54 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 114

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Crank HP vs. RWHP

57 kid is exactly right in the way they rate horsepow all acc installed now my question is if a tpi engine dynos at 245 hp at factory , then when us guys test them on chassis dyno we say its like 17-20 percent less. but havent they already used up a few percent like maybe 10 percent already so we shouldnt say there is a 20 percent loss at chassis dyno. am i way off on this one lol or somewhat correct? ive been thinkin to hard lately.
tpi user is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 03:13 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 504
Car: 1985 Camaro and 1996 Mustang GT
Engine: 350 4bbl/281
Transmission: 700R4/4R70W
Axle/Gears: 9" rear/8.8" 4.10

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Crank HP vs. RWHP

they can also sway it either way to make one car seem to be faster than another. the best example is widely known and that was the the LS1 corvettes were rated higher than the LS1 equipped F-Bodys and the motors were identical, and there were actually reports of the F-Bodys reading higher on the chassis dyno. GM did that to make it seem like the corvette was faster to justify the significantly higher price on the vette than the F-Body.
impaled is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 03:57 PM   #12
Moderator
 
five7kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Littleton, CO USA
Posts: 39,540
Car: 82 Berlinetta(2)/57 Bel Air
Engine: LS1 (LS1)/LQ4
Transmission: 4L60E (T56)/4L80E
Axle/Gears: 10B 3.73(9" 4.11)/8.2" 4.11

Classifieds Rating: (11)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi user View Post
57 kid is exactly right in the way they rate horsepow all acc installed now my question is if a tpi engine dynos at 245 hp at factory , then when us guys test them on chassis dyno we say its like 17-20 percent less. but havent they already used up a few percent like maybe 10 percent already so we shouldnt say there is a 20 percent loss at chassis dyno. am i way off on this one lol or somewhat correct? ive been thinkin to hard lately.
A chassis dyno will already include the losses from the accessories and intake/exhaust. Chassis dynos are also one of the worst ways to measure HP. There is no standard, and results can be all over the place depending upon how it is set up and operated.

Engine dynos are much more accurate. The only way to measure drivetrain losses is to do an engine dyno test w/accessories/exhaust, and then repeat on a chassis dyno.

There was a magazine article a couple of years ago about rating the power of your engine. They said in order of accuracy, from highest to lowest: 1. engine dyno; 2. dragstrip ET and MPH (along with vehicle weight); 3. parts combination; 4. chassis dyno.

I have no reason to doubt them.
five7kid is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2008, 02:52 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
rockit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Middleburg Hts. OH
Posts: 785
Car: 85 T/A, 92 Rs
Engine: L98:D,L03:<
Transmission: 700r4x2
Axle/Gears: 3.23 bw, 2.73 10 bolt.

Classifieds Rating: (2)
Re: Crank HP vs. RWHP

that's interesting, considering the rough equations don't include air resistance, or much of anything really, just the absolute basics. though the less numbers to fudge on the better
rockit is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2008, 02:52 AM
ThirdGen
1992 Camaro




Paid Advertisement


Reply

Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Tech Boards > Tech / General Engine

Tags
2004r, chassis, crank, drivetrain, dyno, engine, flyweels, flywheel, horsepower, hp, hpvs, loss, rear, rwhp, versus, wheel
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 


1982 Camaro '82 || 1983 Camaro '83 || 1984 Camaro '84 || 1985 Camaro '85 || 1986 Camaro '86 || 1987 Camaro '87 || 1988 Camaro '88 || 1989 Camaro '89 || 1990 Camaro '90 || 1991 Camaro '91 || 1992 Camaro '92


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright © 1997 - 2012 ThirdGen.org. All rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without the expressed, documented, and written consent of ThirdGen.org's Administrators.

Emails & Contact Details